Status of the States Regarding Juvenile Justice Evaluation

• NCJ Number: 232954
• Author(s): Mary E. Poulin; Ashley Nellis
• Date Published: December 2005
• Length: 65 pages
• Grant Number(s): 98-JN-FX-0112
• Sponsoring Agency: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)
• Corporate Author: Justice Research and Statistics Association
• Sale Source: Justice Research and Statistics Association; NCJRS Photocopy Services
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Research (Applied/Empirical)
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This report from the Justice Research and Statistics Association presents information on juvenile justice evaluation efforts in U.S. States and territories as of 2005.

Abstract

Major findings in this report include: 82 percent of U.S. States and territories have juvenile justice programs that have an evidence-based focus; in a majority of States/territories, responsibility for evaluation rests either with the programs or with an external evaluator; for 41 percent of the States/territories, evaluation requirements are not the same for all juvenile justice programs within the State; a majority of the States/territories produce annual reports of the effectiveness of their juvenile justice programs; and only one State does not use evaluation information on the effectiveness of juvenile justice programs to make funding decisions. Additional findings discuss States' data monitoring and data submission requirements, and States' plans for evaluation-related training. This report collected data on evaluation policies and practices used in 2005 by all 56 States, territories, and the District of Columbia. Data were obtained from Juvenile Justice Specialists, State Advisory Group (SAG) Chairs, and Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) Directors in all the States and territories. Review of the data identified 6 States as having a strong evaluation focus: Arizona, California, Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington; and 13 States that implemented extensive changes in evaluation policies and practices over time: Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas. The major findings in this report indicate that overall, a wide variation exists across States in their evaluation policies and practices, and that the next step in the process should be for States to receive guidance on how to incorporate evaluation-related policies and practices into their juvenile justice systems. Tables, figures, references, and appendixes